ECHR as the next battleground for the rights of women and children

[Ingenieur]

I have started this thread to avoid derailing a previous one.

Original thread:

https://www.mumsnet.com/talk/womens_rights/4852476-tougher-transgender-guidance-for-schools-is-unlawful-sunak-told?page=1

It was suggested there that the ECHR would be an impediment to rescinding or fundamentally changing the GRA or the gender reassignment parts of the Equality Act. This is on the basis that membership of the European Convention on Human Rights would not permit the unwinding of existing rights, even if it does not force member nations to comply.

I know most of us do not practise law, and even fewer are international or constitutional lawyers, but I'd like to understand more of the nuance surrounding this aspect of our fight.

As a starter for 10, is this even true? Is leaving the ECHR the only solition to unwinding these laws?

Also, looking at the ECHR summary of the Goodwin case, it states the following:

Since there [we]re no significant factors of public interest to weigh against the interest of this individual applicant in obtaining legal recognition of her gender re-assignment, the Court reache[d] the conclusion that the notion of fair balance inherent in the Convention now tilt[ed] decisively in favour of the applicant.

It is astonishing that a case which overturned a number of previous ECHR Article 8 and Article 12 cases was judged on the basis of public interest, and that no public interest was noted.

Seems like a bit of a mess.

That's fair. I agree

That's not how Courts work.

Voting might conceivably be a route to leaving the ECHR. It is not a route to overturning the ECHR's jurisprudence.

Yes I’m aware.

It doesn’t mean the electorate can’t get where they want to be via voting.

The strategy here seems to be fluctuating massively.

Some posters saying remain within the ECHR and take legal challenges with the aim of overturning ECHR jurisprudence. A perfectly possible route but with a tiny chance of success (courts do not often overturn twenty years worth of precedent).

Other posters seem to be saying that we can vote to 'become sovereign' by which I can only assume you mean leave the ECHR.

The problem is one of discussion - because the conversation becomes massively circular:

A: We cannot repeal the GRA while remaining within the ECHR.

B: OK so we'll just leave the ECHR.

A: OK - that's possible. But carries lots of really awful consequences for the country.

B: Well then we'll just challenge the case law.

A: Yep, you can do that but it's unlikely to succeed.

B: Then we'll just repeal the GRA.

A: We cannot repeal the GRA while remaining within the ECHR.

B: OK so we'll just leave the ECHR...

And on and on and on it goes.

Is there a reason you're dancing around what you're suggesting?

The only route for a public vote to lead to repeal of the GRA is to elect a Government committed to leaving the ECHR. Is that what you're suggesting as the right course of action?

Fine if so, but you should also then own the consequences of that suggestion.

The strategy here seems to be fluctuating massively.

Yep we’re all different posters.

My take is use the law to overturn as much as possible.

And the public will determines demands on changes through electoral voting.

I’m happy with both, no need to do one and not the other.

Women and girls can use both to get back to sex based rights.

OK which brings us back to assessing the impact on women when the GFA is ripped up, key bits of the Brexit deal with the EU are ripped up etc because the UK leaves the ECHR.

I don’t need to do anything as you lot ‘give me money for posts’ don’t.

If the public will is there it becomes possible.

I see that as a fact.

We’ll see where it goes, but I doubt it’ll get better for men. The push back grows each time we see how ridiculous the reality of the law is in practise.

The law is based on a rather coy story about men feeling sorry for gay men who couldn't marry men.

We know the real story now. The law was made without the full facts.

I’ve seen this a few times now. Why on Earth didn’t Labour want to legalise same sex marriage?

So you can't answer the question.

If this is your argument, then people who claim to be trans/transgender/transsexual would have to experience sex/gender in a different way to the rest of us. Could you expand on this?

Yes, something like if a man has special lady feelz, 'lives as a woman' and has his penis amputated, his chromosomes become irrelevant.

The fact that he is still 100% male is supposed not to matter.

Information which is relevant for the rest of society should not be kept private. How is a DBS check supposed to work if nobody is allowed to know an individual's sex?

Could be the same as your age. Surgery to look younger, plus feel younger.

Still not allowed in law.

Your first sentence makes no sense. I don't understand what it is saying, beyond, I think, you saying that you refuse to own the consequences of leaving the ECHR even if that is what you want to ultimately do.

I don’t need to ‘own anything’

Your view on what I need to do is irrelevant.

Women are not the more violent sex class. we didn’t ask for any of this.

None of it is on us. Look to men and sort it out there.

If you can’t ask yourself why not.

People who advocate particular policies do, in fact, need to own the outcomes of those policies.

No I don’t.

Look to the men. Stop berating women.

I'm not berating anyone.

I have pointed out the consequences of leaving the ECHR. If you still want to leave it then it is with full knowledge of those consequences.

You're sounding a bit like a Brexit voter who wanted all the things they thought were good about Brexit, but refuse to take any responsibility for the downsides and blame them all on the EU instead.

I assume your only purpose in being on this thread is to derail. I can't see any other reason for you repeating yourself ad nauseum.

We know you don't want the GRA repealed, so you are trying to stop a discussion between those of us who do.

I voted remain

But listening to you and the other one try to place this at the feet of women is irritating as hell.

I am pro biological facts woman and have never been violent.

It’s society, including TRAs, that keeps bending to violent men. I’m stepping out, those who want peace talk to the men not me.

And I reckon if the public is pushed continuously on this you will get pushback.

I am literally discussing what the topic is about, which is the interactions between GRA repeal and the ECHR.

Tell me you have a very shallow understanding of the Northern Ireland Troubles without telling me you have a very shallow understanding of the Northern Ireland Troubles...