Tougher transgender guidance for schools is unlawful, Sunak told

[Igneococcus]

Sorry can't do sharetoken on this device, I'll do one later if nobody else posts one.
Tougher transgender guidance for schools is unlawful, Sunak told (thetimes.co.uk)

What an utter mess this all is.

"Prentis said that a blanket ban would be unlawful because the Equalities Act states that gender reassignment is a “protected characteristic”, regardless of age. She gave the same advice when ministers asked whether there could be a ban on social transitioning for primary school children."

'Doesn't ring true' ignores the actual objective facts.

The ECHR has found that there is a legal right to change one's legal sex to match gender identity.

Any attempt to legislate contrary to that would be a breach of international law. And therefore, is not something civil servants or ministers would be permitted to do.

Any attempt to legislate contrary to that would be a breach of international law. And therefore, is not something civil servants or ministers would be permitted to do.

I believe that ship sailed a while back. Otherwise the NIP and Illegal Immigration bills would have failed.

Anyway, it's OK to breach international law in limited and specific ways. I know, coz the government told me so.

She really did.

You keep going on about 'international law', then when I asked about the legislation you said it's all based on case law (like the Goodwin ruling).

My understanding of how the ECtHR works is that people (like Goodwin) can bring a case to them if they believe their government is in breach of the European Convention on Human Rights. The court decides if there has been a breach, and if so, that government is expected to put this right. But these rulings don't apply to all member countries, just the one which has been found to be in breach of the ECHR. Other countries don't have to do anything. They may also technically be in breach of these same human rights, but they don't have to do anything unless one of their citizens also goes to the ECtHR.

So what are these 'international obligations'? Where do I find out about the 'international law' that you keep going on about?

But the UK - by and large - has decided to be a country that abides by international law.

It most certainly has not. In the previous few months, the UK has signalled it is happy to breach two international treaties and happily consider withdrawing from a third.

The only other major countries that take a pick'n'mix approach to international laws are the US and Russia.

I don't give a fuck about international laws that allow people to pretend to be the opposite sex. I care about the State's responsibility to protect children from emotional, physical and sexual abuse.
Trans ideology / gender identity fantasy has no business being in schools and inflicted on children. The sooner this government gets out of the mess they've funded and enabled and ensures that schools go back to being politically impartial the better.

No place in any school for adults / activist groups looking to transition children and remove the rights of women and girls.

That's just not correct. When the Court confirms that, for example, Article 8 encompasses a right to change legal sex, any country that does not provide a route to changing legal sex is in breach of Article 8.

The specific judgment is issued against the country being challenged. But the state of the law applies across the board to all ECHR countries.

You seem to think law is only found in legislation but that's just not true. The vast majority of law in most legal systems is found in court judgments and precedents.

Which two international treaties?

Withdrawing from an international treaty is not a breach of international law.

If you exclude the Boris Johnson years and the NI Protocol, the UK has a pretty good record on compliance with international law.

You’ve said we can’t repeal the GRA unless exiting the ECHR but there is movement within domestic law

Then there was a conflation between the two

What could we do for women and girls here within the domestic laws?

I’m not sure if you are happy with the status quo so may not answer, but this recent statement seems to be domestic law related. Which implies change could be made?

I mean fine, but 'I don't give a fuck about international law' isn't quite the rallying cry you seem to think it is.

If people want to argue for leaving the ECHR they are free to do so. But repealing the GRA is simply not possible while we are members (unless we change the rules to say ministers and civil servants are permitted to break the law).

Sure - there's nothing that I'm aware of in the ECHR that would prevent the Equality Act being amended. I confess I haven't looked at that specific question so could be wrong.

But I am addressing the point about the ECHR to those claiming we should repeal the GRA. Perfectly entitled to hold that view, of course, but I think they should be honest that by definition then they also advocate the UK's withdrawal from the ECHR.

Yes I didn’t know before but your posts have convinced me they go hand in hand

And going back to the op we could change whatever is causing Prentis to say there is a barrier

It's not meant as a rallying cry. More an exasperation about a country full of adults who have (mostly) stood back and watched adult activists enable social contagion to rampage amongst the most vulnerable of children in our society.
The legal discussions will continue but I'm more concerned that the government uses the current safeguarding & education laws (including on political impartiality in schools ) to ensure that children are safeguarded from an adult ideology currently doing too many of them long term harm.

Neither are particularly good examples. For all its cruelty and abhorrent policy, the Immigration Act is not unambiguously contrary to international law. It’s arguable, certainly. But to proceed it would have needed confirmation from the AG that it was, in her view at least, compliant with international law.

The Protocol Bill, by contrast was unambiguously in breach of international law in my view, and was only progressed because Johnson appointed an unqualified toady as AG to give the legal view he wanted. But that Bill has been pulled - precisely because this AG has confirmed that it no longer has any legal justification in international law.

But that is what is happening. Victoria Prentis has given her advice on how the Government can act within the confines of the law.

Your exasperation is no justification for the government breaking the law - either by repealing the GRA contrary to international law, or by issuing guidance which is in breach of domestic equality law.

They can change the latter though?

Hopefully that is what is happening behind the scenes

Views on how to get where we want to go domestically at least

They could (as far as I know - I haven't researched the ECHR implications around the Equality Act). But probably not before the next general election.

Incidentally, those who 'don't give a fuck' about international law might also ask themselves if they give a fuck about the Good Friday Agreement, because withdrawing from the ECHR would be a breach of that Agreement too.

I'm sure it is. They must be on at least version 10 by now - having started from a dreadful trans activist inspired "be kind and roll over girls" base.
It's getting them to find ways round the demand to centre trans ideology but instead to focus on the need to safeguard children. The exemptions in the Equality Act are there for a reason (as the incoherent Stonewall's lead managed to mention yesterday). The law on single sex toilets for children exists. The law on political impartiality for schools exists. The Children Act's requirement to work in partnership with parents exist.
Implementing all of these would go a long way to remove queer theory political activists from schools, would reinforce that only the courts can remove parental authority and so on.
That would be a start.

"Incidentally, those who 'don't give a fuck' about international law might also ask themselves if they give a fuck about the Good Friday Agreement, because withdrawing from the ECHR would be a breach of that Agreement too".

Alexa - show me a squirrel 😂

Thanks for those completely irrelevant examples of international law.

Now can you explain how not being allowed to falsify your birth certificate breaches international law?

Statement
I have been working closely with my Right Honourable Friend, the Minister for Women and Equalities on guidance for schools and colleges when a child is questioning their gender.
We have always said that this is about safety for children. It is a difficult and sensitive area and more information is needed about the long-term implications of a child to act as though they are the opposite sex. We also need to take care to understand how such actions affect other children in the school or college. These decisions must not be taken lightly or in haste.
It is vital that the guidance we publish gives clarity for schools and colleges and reassurance for parents. So, we have made the decision to allow more time – to speak to teachers, parents, lawyers and other stakeholders – in order to ensure this guidance meets the high expectations that these groups rightly have for it.
In the meantime, schools and colleges should proceed with extreme caution. They should always involve parents in decisions relating to their child, and should not agree to any changes that they are not absolutely confident are in the best interests of that child and their peers. They should prioritise safeguarding by meeting their existing legal duties to protect single sex spaces and maintain safety and fairness in single sex sport.
I want to give reassurance of how seriously we are taking this issue, and will endeavour to keep the House updated ahead of any developments.

That’s Keegan kicking it into the long grass.

These examples were brought up by the poster I was responding to.

And I’ve already explained how repealing the GRA would breach international law.