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

Its been pointed out on X that he is volunteering as an activist on this.

If I come across the tweet again I will post it.

Of course they don't. Because they refuse to believe that they have differences to biological females. I think its time for LGB to break off from the TQ.

The question FWR has been asking activists for years now:

Exactly what number of women are acceptable collateral damage to permit male people to have these freedoms of self expression?

We're talking
Loss of privacy, dignity, bodily autonomy
Right to homosexuality
Right to freedom of assembly
Rights as a sex class in law
Exclusion
Harassment
Assault
Rape

To enable unboundaried, fantastically selfish male self expression.

Let's compare the human rights involved.

Oh and I forgot to add:

we've been asking too (for years) how is this going to be measured to assess the impact?

How do you count the number of women who stop using public facilities, turn around and walk away at the sight of a male person out of fear of saying anything?

How do we count the number of women sexually harassed and assaulted who won't even be able to report it, when even the ones raped are struggling to get justice?

How do you count the number of women who don't access rape crisis services? Or who die at the hands of their partner because they couldn't go into a refuge because a female only one wasn't allowed in case male people pouted and felt that permitting women a small corner of accessibility was an insult to their dignity?

We know from long and direct experience on this board that the response to all that from a key member of the legal team will be to shrug, say it's only women and doesn't matter to or affect any real people, so no worries.

This is going to paint the misogyny across the sky.

Too bad about Adam Wagner. I often read his Twitter feed on migration human rights issues, but I won't have any interest in his take here.

Moralists like Adam automatically default to the position that people who have a place in the world based on a settled understand like sex or kinship or nationality are narrow minded, and only the unboundaried, the permanently open, and the woolly minded that will find excuses for why all people have to stand back and conceed when any one else wants something someone else already has, are truly moral.

He would have been a monk taking money from the gullible for greedy bishops whilst praying in a monestary in earlier times.

The "everywheres" and the "somewheres"?
Didn't I hear that this is viewed as a vaguely disguised anti Semitic trait, along with any reference to the long march thru history/the institutions and Cultural Marxism?

I think this loosely ties in to why so many New Atheists and humanists have jumped ship from physical reality to support a cause that has less evidence underpinning it than evidence for a giant turtle holding up the Earth in the celestial sphere.

Because any moralistic/non relativist/judgemental takes/expression of disgust...is all so frowned on and discouraged in this new fluid definitions/flexible boundaries/language dictating and overriding physical reality and established civic mores brave new world.

Unless of course your principles align with open borders, the international citizen, the tyranny of the nuclear family...and sex based rights definitions in law.

The veneer of civilisation is very thin and very fragile. Chaos and insanity is barely a millimeter or a moment's thought below the surface.

Women (and some men) are currently barricading, furiously hammering retaining walls and struts to bolster that very thin and very fragile veneer.

BoiledBeetle’s post upthread quotes this tweet.

“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.”

So yes, they are all acting as activists.

He's not acting pro bono as he's out of jurisdiction. He is ONLY a volunteer activist. He WANTS people to be forced to submit.

“out of jurisdiction” = because he doesn’t live in Scotland?

(Genuine question btw, I’ve no idea who he is.)

What a disappointment.

It's definitely the Battle of Cable Street round here.

Surely EHRC are going to be asked for input? I wonder if both the Scottish and UK branches will be involved.

The explanation re Adam Wagner