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.

You could have typed yes or no to children faster than that.

It isn't a thought experiment. Remember, this thread is on and about the ECHR. Under the Convention and the ECHR, sex as recorded by the state is a matter of Article 8 rights. Remove the recording of sex by the state and those Convention rights no longer apply, would they?

Are you pro the status quo?

If you wish to pay my consultancy fee then I'm perfectly happy to provide you with the answer you requested and the reasons as to why that answer is what it is

But you are not paying my consultancy fee and you may therefore do your own research on this if you truly wish an answer to your question. All the information you need to do that has been given to you. And by doing your own research you can sure that your reading of the law is entirely free of any bias or agenda beyond that which you yourself bring to it

I am merely stating a fact of law in response to a claim. Nothing more. Nothing less

Ha well you’re posting enough on it all anyway so no need.

Wondering if you’re spamming the thread with an agenda..

A shame as direct answers are useful on FWR.

The ECHR disagrees with you on this. As do multiple healthcare systems, the field of neurology, neurobiology, and others

That was a direct answer. It is merely an answer you do not wish to accept

I can only point out that you're the one spamming and attempting to derail this thread by demanding that I do work for you. You could simply have stopped responding all the way back when I pointed out I'd already given you the information you needed to arrive at the answer to the question you asked

I wonder if there's anything in the wind to suggest the GRA will be repealed? I can't see any other reason to suggest removing sex markers and storing them in your medical records, of all places.
Wouldn't it take a court order to access them? Totally unnecessary.

Your language is strangely AI

But this is a forum it’s not de railing to ask questions and get quick responses from someone who knows

Even if they think on that particular question they want a fee unlike all their other posts

But anyway as amusing as it is I’ll get the info from someone else not being odd

Total nonsense to say the field of neurology supports gi, not at all. Plus any evidence is after treatment! Doh testosterone masculinises.

I can’t see how the opinion of the ECHR is relevant here; fundamentally these aren’t legal questions. As for the rest, the truth is it’s a heavily contested matter. We know some people report a sense of personal identity at odds with their sex and this can, if it impairs their functioning sufficiently, amount to a clinical condition. But that doesn’t establish the universality of gender identity, nor whether it should be treated as equivalent to or more important than sex for specified purposes.
you’ve answered the question about your agenda though. So thanks for that.

Why would the state (the state being the Head of State, Parliament, and the devolved legislatures) need to hold a permanent record of your sex?

When working on long-term funding they rely on census data, not records of birth. And as you're now aware, people just fill those in with the information they personally deem to be correct at the time of filling in the form. As they are legally required to do

Pay inequality data is acquired through companies reporting figures and the results of surveys, for example. The state does not compare those responses against the register of births

Courts and tribunals make a determination as to if sex applies to the case, in what regard, and how it is to be determined at the point of hearing cases and specific to that case right now. Not all people appearing in front of a court or tribunal will have a UK birth certificate, and in some cases may not have a birth certificate at all. Some people will have come from countries where terrible upheaval such as war meant that no registration of birth could take place. In those cases the court or tribunal must make a judgement as to what the person's sex is not based on a birth certificate

And as I said before. Not a thought experiment. Article 8 Convention rights in regards to sex are in regards to the recording of sex by the state. If the state doesn't record sex in any way then would those rights still apply? How could they if the member state does not keep a record of sex, and therefore there is no record of sex that can be changed?

The judgements of the ECHR is relevant here because that is what this thread is about

And now I'm going to go off and have a life. Catch you all later

This snippiness would make more sense if you hadn’t already posted lengthy screeds on the case law. Consultancy fee indeed.

Yep. Agenda alright. This one won’t be missed.

Just going to highlight how some things are incredibly fluid and can be "queered" like, say, sex, or female consent.

Whereas other things are incredibly rigid and not to be questioned, like, say, the EHCR, or "the field of neurology".

It's almost as if there was motivated reasoning.

Also, curious that this thread is generating so much energy. I sense increased concern that "repealing the GRA" is increasingly moving into the Overton window...

We were a long way off that 5-6 years ago, and it seemed like a pipedream then, but I can now see it happening - the issues of sex falsification are now clear, and the "well, what harm can it do?" justification from that EHRC case has been shown to be incorrect.

Well that was a fly by agenda blast

Needs to be taken with a hefty pinch of salt, I think. Seems to claim expertise; lawyers don’t write, or reason like that. Even allowing for the informality of the forum and the fact that much ECHR jurisprudence is impenetrable wank (technical term)

The GFA required people in Northern Ireland to have access to the European Court if Human Rights. So yes it does require the UK to be signatories.

Yours is a statement that reveals that you can't read judgements in a necessary lateral manner

@LowKeyLockee
I will read your post in full when I have time, but for now I would just like to point out to you that I have said here (or possibly on the other thread) that I do not have legal training, so it should come as no surprise to you if I have difficulty following some legal arguments.

I would, however, like to understand them, so if you can reply to my posts in a civil manner, with clear explanations for the layperson, then that would be far more helpful than snarky posts saying that people like me can't understand the judgment. I see no reason why I shouldn't be able to understand it, although I might need some help to do so from people who do have legal training.

If you're just going to be rude then I'll stop reading your posts altogether, because in my experience people who feel the need to be rude to others who don't understand something often do so out of a feeling of insecurity because they don't understand fully themselves.

Lawyers - good ones anyway - manage to explain their meaning without resort to impenetrable gibberish. I wouldn’t worry too much about the sneery tone here, if I were you.

Which part is incorrect? How could these judgments (from 2017, 2021 and 2023 respectively) influence what was written in 2002?

@OldCrone I don’t think they want people to understand

I reckon there’s an agenda there