JR of ScotGov's Section 35/GRR bill - next week

[ArabeIIaScott]

MBM have shared info on the 'interveners': Scottish Trans/Equality Network, Stonewall, Gendered Intelligence, and the ICDR:

https://murrayblackburnmackenzie.org/2023/09/11/who-are-the-interveners-in-the-judicial-review-of-the-uk-governments-use-of-section-35/

'Robin Moira White, Adam Wagner, Sam Fowles and Stephanie Davin are also assisting in the proceedings'

i cant believe she came out with that drivel. as if Pink leggings never happened or existed to scupper everything!

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-66852911

Break for lunch. Summation of Scotgov/Bain's position, here.

Thanks to @ArabeIIaScott and others for the live commenting!

Lady Halfene has just asked if it’s true that official identification such as birth vets and passports can be changed without a GRC.
How does she not know this?

Was just going to ask this Celello

I think she’s just realised the implications of this. Scales falling from her eyes in real time

Like many of us, she’s just had the WTF moment and understood the utter madness of the system

Ha, yes - just came here to post that. Lady Haldane and the barrister representing ScotGov are both less informed than pretty much anyone in the FRW folder.

How many times have Stonewall been mentioned? Since when has Stonewall been an expert in the Public Sector Duty?
I cannot believe they are using their evidence as expert in areas that are not their areas of expertise

Looks like Stonewall has a loud voice in this hearing.

Sorry, I've had to work this afternoon!

Yes. They're a lobby group, they're not lawyers.

This whole case is supposed to be about the fine detail of legal technicalities. So why wave Stonewall bullshit about like it's the Holy Grail?

UK government barrister saying that Section 35 cannot be used in just “more important” matters as the SG have argued, it’s there to act in ALL matters than affect UK law.

Stonewall don't have lawyers on their board.

Garden Court Chambers can explain to Lady Haldane what happens when you take legal advice from a bunch of (very good) fundraisers.

I did try to listen to it but was bored to tears. Dorothy Bain is doing that deliberately, isn't she?

Dunno, vivarium. I was quite surprised that someone whose job is making a compelling argument .... didn't.

Done for today. Tomorrow it's the UK govt putting their case forward.

Most of today's case seemed to be 'They can't stop something being done that will cause problems in future unless they can provide statistical proof of those future problems having happened.'

Which - as it requires a time machine - seems more of a physics problem than a legal one.

well i am totally compelled by the scottish governments argument today. god its been a day of mind numbingly monotone waffle waffle waffle.

the jusge seems to have a better clue of things than montone voice did.

and the lightbulb moment was rather illuminating!

What was the lightbulb moment?

The judge has only just realised you don't need a GRC to change your passport etc.

Oh yes.

Considering this is now her 2nd high profile case on sex / gender and how the GRR interacts with the EA you'd think she'd be thoroughly aware of all the detail by now.

I swear you could pick any regular poster off here and they would have a better understanding of this whole situation than these barristers/judges.

When Lady Haldane said 'I hadn't quite understood this before...', I was astounded given the Gender Representation on Public Boards thing.

DB's main argument seemed to me to be that this change in the law wouldn't affect the law, only the operation of the law. So that's fine.

Then also she said that this court case was nothing to do with the actual Bill itself or its merits or otherwise, but anyway went on to argue that nobody had any evidence that there were any harms to women arising from the course while everyone in the whole universe tried really hard to beat down the unbidden mental image of Isla Bryson rising from their memory like a giant pink dildo-vision.

Then I had to turn it off because other people in my listening vicinity had forbidden me from listening to the monotonous breathless waffle any further, so maybe she made all the good arguments this afternoon and I missed them. I think they were: Stonewall says it's fine.

Did someone mention Mr pink leggings (any excuse to post this for the newer lurkers). This man said he was a woman. Scotland sent him to a women's prison.

DB's main argument seemed to me to be that this change in the law wouldn't affect the law, only the operation of the law.

She then spent quite a bit of time arguing that it wouldn't even affect the operation of the law - it would be operating in the same way for more people. But not many more people. Hardly any, really. And anyway the UK government had thought about adding even more than that (ignore the fact they'd decided against it) so the tiny Scottish numbers didn't count. Besides which the argument said 'might', and that's not evidence in the way that saying 'would' is. And some of the arguments might be wrong even if others were right - and if some of them are wrong that casts doubt on the ones that are right. And you don't need a birth certificate anyway, so it's all fine.

I think that was it.

Although I must admit I got bit lost around the point about it not being a problem if people couldn't use an employee of the opposite sex being paid more to prove pay discrimination, because they could use one of the same sex being paid more instead.