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.

How is anybody stopping that discussion? Here you are, discussing it. Here we are pointing out the flaws in some of the points being made. A discussion

Ohhhhhh! Is it the case that what you mean is that wish to say as you wish without erroneous points being picked up and discussed? That you should be allowed to discuss things, but those that disagree are not allowed to? That's a very different thing

Can you show XX can change to XY in humans?

@PlanetJanette

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.

I think public sentiment does form part of their thinking. Looking at the Goodwin case again, the summary mentioned a few times the changing attitudes toward transsexual recognition in society, which isn't a legal question per se, but them recognising that the outcome of their judgement should reflect broader public opinions and attitudes.

Could you explain which opinions you've not been allowed to voice? I haven't noticed any significant deletions of posts on opinions on this in this thread

Perhaps if you elucidated on this we could present that case to the moderators. Highlight specific opinions you've been entirely unable to voice on this thread?

Lacking foresight and only prioritising men has huge repercussions as we’re finding out.

Comfort or not that’s the issue.

Sure, that is true. But there is a difference between a court reflecting broader social attitudes in its consideration of issues; and a court deciding a legal point because they think if they don't, one of its member states will engage in an act of national self-harm, leave the ECHR and trigger a new civil war in its territory.

Once again the argument is tough, suck it up, world law has decided men are women if they want. If you don't like it you are personally responsible for terrorists in northen Ireland ripping babies apart and kneecapping people. If you won't allow men into all your spaces then brexit and the far right are your fault. What sort of shit argument is that?
A very bad law by the ehrc keeps being upheld and instead of challenge or leave that organisation the answer is shut up nasty women, shut up or we will be violent. OK.

A never ending stream of baggage has to be attached to it as the central premise is so ridiculous.

Repercussions only arise if people choose for them to do so.

If people choose to prioritise repealing legislation with (by many posters own admission) no practical impact, and which applies to only about 5000 trans people; over protecting the lives of people in Northern Ireland, that is a choice.

OK you are not a lawyer at all or you would know that law is a social construction constantly changing in line with norms.
Hence homosexuality. Legal 1967. Adoption 2002. Marriage 2014. Etc.

Women were also part of the terrorist movements. Just pointing that out as a matter of historical fact. The so-called 'paramilitary organisations' were far more open about women being part of their 'organisation' than actual military organisations of the time. And of course, I do not believe it to be particular appropriate to be so cavalier about the deaths of women and children as a result of terrorism either. Or am I mistaken and this is, in fact, not a thread on a board that comes under Feminism: Chat?

Laws and human rights are social constructs decided on by democracy. They are subject to change and not some trans reality thing that exist from a higher dimension or something.

This sneering pomposity is entertaining.

Repercussions happen because people make mistakes. In this case a fundamental and basic lie.

’Own it’ I think was used in pp, those involved with establishing that lie on behalf of men should do that.

The matter of chromones was already covered in Goodwin. As you are already aware of given my previous answer in this regard

This is utterly surreal. It reminds me of a couple of posters I know, who post obsessively on a transport forum dedicated to trains.😂

"A never ending stream of baggage[...]"

An interesting way to attempt to explain away the intricacies of international treaties, especially international peace treaties, and how it's relevant to the matters at hand

That last response made me laugh 😬

Do you take bookings for children's parties?

Personally I don't negotiate with terrorists. I will not meet your demands to appease a threat of violence. Be violent and you suffer the consequences, no more will we cowe in fear and appease. Fuck off now. Enough is enough. A year 7 asked me the other day how she can not do puberty as she wants to be a boy. Its not a game. This is real children's lives as well as male adult sex fetishism. Come on! Wake up! This ideology is dangerous and it's not only 5000 strange men anymore, its nhs schools Prisons sports everywhere.

It's an unusual thread I'll admit with the usual exchanges of ideas being somewhat drowned by a pompous repetition of outraged whataboutery that bears little resemblance to the points that women on here are making. Suggestions that anyone who refuses to accept certain views are guilty of wanting "genocide / extreme harm" etc to occur against certain groups (paraphrasing) does seem to be a familiar tactic

But still - at least it's not derailing important discussions about child safeguarding or women's safety so it remains an interesting thread to observe.

Awww, bless. Is the best you can manage patronising remarks meant to demean the person you're responding to?

I'd say I'd expect better from certain posters on this board, but that would be a lie so big I doubt the planet would be big enough to contain it.....

No! I genuinely think you are very entertaining.

It is also reminding me of trains.

It wasn't really about you and this thread.