LGBTQ+ Organisations to intervene on the UK Government's Block on the Gender Recognition Reform Bill in Scotland

[IwantToRetire]

Stonewall, Gendered Intelligence and the Institute for Constitutional and Democratic Reform (“ICDR”) have jointly been given leave to intervene in an important judicial review relating to the UK Government’s power to prevent legislation approved by the Scottish Parliament becoming law.
https://www.doughtystreet.co.uk/news/adam-wagner-and-stephanie-davins-clients-granted-permission-intervene-important-constitutional

.
Europe's largest LGBTQ+ right charity Stonewall, Gendered Intelligence and the Institute for Constitutional and Democratic Research (ICDR) have together been granted leave to intervene in an important Scottish judicial review in which the Scottish Government is challenging the UK Secretary of State for Scotland, Alister Jack MP, on the issuing of a “section 35” order to block the passage of the Gender Recognition Reform (Scotland) Bill into law.

A senior judge has permitted these organisations to submit written evidence to the court, outlining their rationale behind challenging the UK Government’s stance that there would be adverse consequences if the Bill became law

Each of these charities represents a different area of relevant expertise, and by working together they will seek to provide evidence to the court demonstrating that:

• International comparators demonstrate that measures similar to the Gender Recognition Reform (Scotland) Bill have been implemented in comparable jurisdictions, without many or all of the adverse impacts which have been identified in the UK government Statement of Reasons.
• The “adverse impacts” on equalities law identified by the UK Government are, in fact, unlikely to occur or will only occur in very rare factual contexts
• Parliament did not intend the section 35 powers be used in the case of a mere policy disagreement or without first exhausting other avenues for dialogue between the UK Government and Scottish Parliament.

NB the full story is on Stonewall's web site https://www.stonewall.org.uk/about-us/news/lgbtq-organisations-intervene-uk-governments-block-gender-recognition-reform-bill

The most they can do is identify that it has never happened, because this is a belief system based on personal fiction based on feelings, not facts, where you look straight at reality and deny it's there. And where one group have the power to set the fiction and compel the other lesser group to unconditionally enable it up to and including accepting violation and injury, under threat of punishment.

This is the part that really has to be addressed.

But in the mean time, goody. Put the emotional support zoo on standby, and let's have the LGBA intervene too please, because otherwise it's getting rather plain that it isn't about LGBT voices in their full range of life experience and insight on this, but about a political movement claiming to speak for LGBT people but only those who are politically compliant and useful, and attempting to warp the agenda their way on this principle.

So are we up for actual democracy or a totalitarian woman-hating, misogynist and homophobic nightmare that enables adults to harm children, Holyrood? Own it.

Have those organisations asked to make representations?

'There are many countries across the world, including very recently Spain, where trans people can self-determine their legal gender. That Scotland has democratically decided that its trans citizens should be able to do the same should be upheld and respected.'

Our elected representatives may identify as Scotland, but they certainly don't speak for the majority of people's views on the subject.

Not sure Humza has the stomach for this fight. He's scunnered on continuing so many fights he didn't start.

“Or is this purely about how Scot Govt's actions could conflict with existing UK legislation?”

It’s about the Scottish Government / Scottish Parliament passing legislation which goes beyond its legal powers. If the Scottish Parliament passed flawed legislation which was wholly within its devolved powers then that would be a matter for the people of Scotland, and not a matter (legally) for the UK Government.

If Scottish Parliament passes legislation which goes beyond its devolved powers, that’s a matter which the UK Government can involve itself in, under the terms of devolution.

Worth noting that the Scogov has a history of making grand empty gestures in order to trigger showdowns with WM. see also the UNHRC rights of the child case. Which they lost.

For the SNP it's purely showboating, an attempt to claim that evil WM won't allow Scotland to do what it wants. Trans people are barely a consideration for them.

Sorry, UNHRC should be UNCRC

https://www.dailyrecord.co.uk/news/politics/snp-accused-turning-childrens-rights-28830728

Exactly, LoobiJee. Hence my concern that the flaws in this legislation, that requires rapists to be imprisoned with a supply of women to rape, and parents to be punished for protecting their children from being cut, are not issues that will affect the outcome of this JR.

This should have been a constitutional test only but allowing SW, GI etc to intervene has already broadened the remit and it will be interesting to see where it goes. There may be quite a lot of sunlight in court which, although it may not affect the judgment, will get the issues out there even further.

I understand your concern about the wider issues, Jellysaurus. But as Crouton says, while the UK Government’s use of their Section 35 power should be a narrow constitutional test, and will in fact be what the judges have to make their decision on, allowing those two campaign groups to contribute will inevitably broaden the public debate about this out on to the wider issues. It means that groups concerned about women’s rights and children’s safeguarding need to be ready to influence the public debate.

This will be happening in a pre-election period and we have seen that Labour in England and Scotland (where they are in opposition and seeking to be elected in the future) have changed their public positioning on this, having seen what happened to the SNP after the GRR fiasco.

It is the job of UK Government to win the constitutional argument. Those concerned with women’s rights and safeguarding children need to make the wider arguments about why the SNP’s legislation harms children and women. The resounding message for politicians needs to be “massive vote loser” as that’s what they care about.

It'll be another "OperationLetThemSpeak"
Gendered Intelligence were outed in the Hannah Barnes book as being an adult organisation with an inappropriate influence on child health at GIDS. Presumably they'll have some revealing arguments about why other people's 16 year olds should be encouraged down a pathway to infertility, drug use and being a life long medical patient in trying to achieve the unachievable?

Isn't it about how changing the GRA in Scotland (gender recognition is a devolved area) will affect the way the EA2010 (not devolved) will operate in the whole of the UK?

The Gender Recognition Reform (Scotland) Bill operates at a complex intersection between devolved and reserved matters. It is about a devolved matter (gender recognition reform), but it has potential consequences for how the law would operate in reserved areas (particularly equal opportunities law and the Equality Act 2010).

https://commonslibrary.parliament.uk/section-35-of-the-scotland-act-and-vetoing-devolved-legislation/

Yes, it is.

The legalities will be about a specific, relatively narrow issue. But the way it is addressed, the 'interveners' and the resultant debate will shine even more sunshine upon the issues. More blanket BeKinders and Doesn'tAffectMes to be informed and influenced. More politicians to reverse ferret when they see more potential votes lost.

Puuuuuullll - on both aspects.

It appears to be an organisation ostensibly promoting education of constitutional issues but its charitable objects overwhelmingly refer to human rights. Kezia Dugdale is a trustee.

https://register-of-charities.charitycommission.gov.uk/charity-search/-/charity-details/5175689/full-print

Gendered Intelligence co wrote much of the EHRC Equality Act trans guidelines for organisations that trans rights activists rely on. This was a result of the government response to the Maria Miller led Trans Equality Inquiry in 2016.

tsk, tsk.

The men and the Alpha yet Most Victimised Caste have decided that the number that matters for the impact on women is n+N where both n and N are decided upon by them.

And by that time, what's the point of legislating about something that nobody but women care about especially as women don't constitute a meaningful legal class by the time we're at that pass.

I read of one particular case that occured in Argentina - where VAWG, as elsewhere in central and south America is epidemic in proportion -and as a result the muder of women and girls is also recorded as a 'femicide'.

Two Transwomen who were working as prostitutes brutally attacked and murdered a woman who was also working as a prostitute - but because of their trans identity it was not recorded a a femicide; whereas in the case of a TW who was murdered by his boyfriend , the crime was recorded as a femicide because the victim identified as a woman.

Yes, that’s right, I was focusing on the underlying principle of not exceeding devolved powers (at least as I understand it) - that by passing legislation in Scotland which would have the effect of being akin to changing the law outside Scotland, they would be exceeding their devolved powers. Whilst the bill doesn’t say “and amend EA2010 in the following ways”, if it has implications in terms of the practical effect which amount to making changes to EA2010 then the UK Government is perfectly entitled to object on constitutional/ devolution grounds.

There's Karen Ingala Smith's femicide census in the UK.

Do you recall the Observer's campaign to end femicide? And the revelations about the age at which deaths used not to be counted for women?

https://www.mumsnet.com/talk/womens_rights/4185386-The-Observer-End-Femicide-campaign

Stonewall, Gendered Intelligence and the ICDR are represented by DLA Piper Scotland LLP. James Findlay K.C. and David Blair are instructed in the intervention. Robin Moira White, Adam Wagner, Sam Fowles and Stephanie Davin are also assisting in the proceedings. All are acting pro bono.

Sits on hands.

<Sigh> There have been times when Adam Wagner seemed to understand the enormous hit to women's rights but obviously not.

I did paste in the Governments arguements about why they invoke Section 35. They aren't addressing anything about the rights and wrongs of trans, so cant understand why groups representing trans have a voice in it.

The Government is saying that you cant have different parts of the UK with different laws relating to the same issue. ie GRAs, the age at which they can be obtained.

So they are saying that this is one instance where Scotland can not makes its own laws.

I thought it was really good that they managed to summarise it to 4 lines.

So it is about the constitutional rights of each government.

(But and I dont wanat to derail another thread with Labour cant be trusted, but worth remembering that Starmer thinks that the UK Government should not intervene which mean he thinks it is okay that within the UK different access to a GRA is okay. And he's a lawyer???)

Sorry to quote myself but this is the signifigant arguement. How having different laws in different parts of the UK will impact on the EA.

To see full statement https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/statement-of-reasons-related-to-the-use-of-section-35-of-the-scotland-act-1998/html-version#part-4-adverse-effects-in-relation-to-the-operation-of-the-equality-act-2010

So unclear how outside bodies have any business being allowed to put forward arguements. If anybody should surely it would be the EHRC?

I wonder if any of the GC women's campaign groups will now try to be included.

I'm just going to repeat what I said half asleep last night.

So they have downgraded their "no adverse impact" somewhat.

without many or all of the adverse impacts which have been identified in the UK government Statement of Reasons.

unlikely to occur or will only occur in very rare factual contexts

So all the lies were lies then?

Its going to be interesting to see what adverse impacts the men want.

The bold comments are extracted from the position on Stonewalls page. If you have followed any of the trans groups so far the story has always been NO adverse impacts recorded anywhere in the world.

They have now actually realised that this lie wasn't doing them any favours and have resorted to gross minimisation as a strategy.

So as I said above, I am looking forward to hearing what adverse impacts these men have decided they expect women to capitulate to.

They will of course insist that we're already "accepting" these adverse impacts and so more of the same is acceptable to them.

Let's hear it. Let's hear this mostly male line up of activists and lawyers tell the court exactly what adverse impacts they expect to enforce here.

Let's hear this mostly male line up of activists and lawyers tell the court exactly what adverse impacts they expect to enforce here.

And this is why, although I dont accept they should have been given a voice, it looks like there need to be some groups also given standing to counter argue.