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.

Wow - what a lot of opinions that women on here are not allowed to voice.
Plus ca change.

Tell me that you’ve lost the argument without telling me…

I think it's very revealing. They must feel threatened.

Definitely.

Oh I really don't think even you think you've won the argument that repealing the GRA would be worth scrapping the Good Friday Agreement and returning to the Troubles.

Your constant framing of this as being womens interests versus mens interests shows a stunning lack of understanding of the Troubles. Claiming that if people want peace they should 'talk to the men' shows you don't even seem to know that that talking happened. 25 years ago. Led by a woman as it goes. Peace was achieved.

It is you that is advocating a policy that will upend that peace.

Brexit is a good example of where this can go though, I’ll give it that.

People are unhappy about something and feel ignored. They end up showing it in a vote.

I’d learn from that and not underestimate the strength of public will to change things.

If men keep pushing women and girls to concede and society sees the reality of men in women’s spaces, as is happening more and more, you’ll get a groundswell of push back.

So the choice is there, ignore thar public feeling or not.

I keep reading this thread in utter disbelief. I'd never have guessed that anyone would suggest that the reason we can't get rid of the GRA is because repeal would result in the scrapping of the Good Friday Agreement.

So men who think they're women have to have what they want because otherwise another lot of men will start killing each other as well as a lot of innocent women and children. Astonishing.

It's certainly an interesting tactic to adopt!

I've gone back and forth on the question of whether or not leaving the ECHR is actually required, because obviously it depends on the details of each case/precedent that needs to be overturned, and I'm literally live right now trying to absorb all of the information of all the past cases referenced here.

I'm okay with either though.

I don't see Labour going for the leave the ECHR nuclear option though. I wonder if one option is stronger than another in the case of a Labour vs Con govt in 2024/5. I feel like it would be easier to make a case for an update to "playschool" fake gender certificates, combined with solidification and clarification of the rules relating to prisons/DBS being able to access real birth certs when required.

Access to many spaces is not dependent on GRCs which I think is important to remember. Even some prisons.

That's great rhetoric, but it doesn't change international or domestic law.

The legal constraints are there.

Hi everyone, I'm pleased there is some vigorous debate being generated. I think it's really important to air all sides of this, otherwise we can't understand what the road to our desired outcomes might look like.

While I may not like the answers in the summaries provided by @LowKeyLockee and @PlanetJanette , I do appreciate them sharing their opinions which will ultimately allow the rest of us to sharpen up our arguments and identify where a balance may lie, or what the consequences might be, or indeed which avenues are more readily open to challenge without, say, needing to renegitiating the Good Friday Agreement.

I'll try not to take my eye off the thread for so long!

And we still we can vote on that. You haven’t denied this anyway.

If it happens those who ignored the public can take the blame. They should have learnt from Brexit.

OK - so let's start from scratch here.

These people who are ignoring the public by refusing to unlawfully repeal the GRA. Who are they? And what do you think they should do? How should they get around the legal constraints they are under?

That was the answer. It was to the reiteration of a question I'd already answered. Go back to the answer I gave you the first time. I have some faith that you'll be able to understand a plain English answer spelt out for you. Even if it is eventually

Yes. Goodwin

That . . . summation is incorrect in law. As that information has already been provided in this thread I can only assume your self-confessed lack of legal knowledge has led you to misunderstanding some basic facts. Perhaps if you undertook some adult education, that might help? I've heard that they're doing marvellous AS-levels in law these days. That should be sufficient, I would think. I'm all for expanding one's sphere of knowledge

If the ECHR have really painted themselves into a corner as pp suggests, then they are still to blame for doing so.

If people get annoyed enough they’ll show it in votes.

It’s those who put fundamental lies onto society at fault. Perhaps they can learn from that and not try again as there’s bad outcomes in a variety of ways.

It's a discussion board. A place of exchange. If you've come searching for the exact strategy that you think you'll need to counter, you are largely wasting your time.

OK, so it will be the ECHR to blame when the UK leaves and the Good Friday Agreement goes up in flames.

Do you think the ECHR spends a lot of time determining how their judgments will play with public opinion? Their job is to interpret the law. End of. If countries take political decisions because they don't like that law, that's not on them.

Except as I've highlighted, the exchanges from the pro-repeal posters are massively circular. Because no one is willing to just say that yes, they think more dead women, children and men in Northern Ireland is a price worth paying for repealing the GRA.

So we get the shifting strategies. Let's just challenge the law. Oh no, wait, let's leave the ECHR after all. No wait - we'll challenge the law.

Yes. The people who didn’t think this through. Whoever started with gender ID first.

They didn’t foresee how women and girls would react and how society could push back.

If they have zero option to change course they’ve made a massive mistake.

You've misunderstood the concept of 'private information'. This thread is in regards to the ECHR. In this case, Article 8. The term 'private information' has particular meaning in that regard as under Article 8 'private information' is information about a private individual (within the legal meaning of that term, ie, a person as themselves, rather than as a representative of an organisation, or an organisation itself). Although that confusion is understandable, given your keenness and honesty in admitting you don't have any legal expertise or experience

Hmmm, how best to explain this in layperson's terms? I think the best way is by analogy. In overall terms the difference exists much in the same way there's a difference between "public interest" and "what the public are interested in". In one sense they seem to be the same thing, but in law they are two different concepts

As already extensively covered elsewhere, if you can show that some people move through time at a rate different to 1 sec/sec you'd have an argument. But you cannot and therefore do not

We've all been learning as we go along. We learn by exchanging thoughts and ideas. What unites is the determination to do whatever will be most effective to achieve our goals. It has been very succesful as a strategy so far. Which is why you are here, no?

This is now getting bizarre. The notion that a country would willingly create the conditions to reignite a civil war in its own territory and think that blaming an international court for doing so is at all sensible is utterly weird.

If the UK goes down the path you suggest, I'm not sure saying 'well it's all Strasbourg's fault' will be much comfort to the new victims of the Troubles.