Sex Matters to intervene in For Women Scotland case (4th October 2023)

[IwantToRetire]

Sex Matters has been given permission, as a human-rights organisation, to intervene in the For Women Scotland case being heard by the Court of Session Inner House in Edinburgh on Wednesday 4th October.

Our submission will urge the court to consider whether Lady Haldane’s interpretation of the meaning of sex in the Equality Act is consistent with the European Convention on Human Rights.

The case concerns whether it is lawful for the Scottish Government to tell public bodies to include men who have transitioned by obtaining a gender-recognition certificate (GRC) when considering whether the legal quota for female board members has been met as part of the Gender Representation on Public Boards (Scotland) Act 2018. In December 2022, Lady Haldane ruled that the Scottish Government’s approach was lawful, saying that the definition of woman in the Equality 2010 Act includes biologically male people in possession of a GRC, recognising their “acquired gender” as female.

Sex Matter’s intervention supports For Women Scotland’s appeal against this judgment. It argues that it is wrong in law because it did not consider the impact on fundamental human rights protected by the European Convention on Rights, as legally required by the Human Rights Act (1998).

Our legal argument is that changing the definition of “man” and “woman” in the Equality Act to include members of the opposite sex undermines protections under the European Convention, including Article 3 which covers inhuman or degrading treatment. The European Court of Human Rights has already ruled that being searched or intimately examined by a member of the opposite sex can fall foul of this provision. Blurring sex categories also infringes on Articles 9, 10, and 11: freedom of belief, freedom of speech and freedom of association.

Our legal submission is supported by our research on single-sex services, which has been made available to the court: this found that many previously women-only groups and services are coming under pressure to include men who identify as women.

We are also continuing to call on the government to resolve the issue through legislation rather than leaving it to courts, which may not consider the impact on wider human rights.

Sex Matters is represented by David Welsh of Axiom Advocates and Rosie Walker, Head of Litigation & Dispute Resolution, Gilson Gray LLP. We will publish our intervention on Wednesday 4th October.

More at https://sex-matters.org/posts/updates/sex-matters-to-intervene-in-for-women-scotland-case/

Ruth Crawford talks much more slowly and clearly than Aidan O'Neill did this morning. It still doesn't make any sense.

Judge raising the suggetsion of legislative amendment, as Sex Matters suggests may be necessary for clarity.

RC says that's not for this court. and cautions against court making any suggestions as to how parliament may wish to act.

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-11416277/Nicola-Sturgeon-tries-throw-gender-court-case-brought-feminists.html

Previous case, November 2022.

SG submission ends.

AN wants to say more ...

I wish he was in the court. The echo is awful.

'Men get more rights'.

'It's a zero sum game that some men get protections women get but females lost protections'

Adjourned.

Decision in due course.

https://threadreaderapp.com/thread/1709578775816536375.html

Astounding efforts from Tribunal Tweets, who deserve a medal.

That was almost impossible to listen to for sound quality as well as intelligibility and just general grounds of sanity.

The full livestream should be available now to listen to if you are feeling masochistic.

https://www.scotcourts.gov.uk/the-courts/supreme-courts/about-the-court-of-session/court-of-session-livestream-hearings

Thanks Arabella, just catching up on this

I've just spent all day listening to it and I'm still going to have to spend this evening catching up via TribunalTweets2!

I'm picturing various journalists reaching for paracetamol and wondering how they're going to write this up.

'Court in Scotland spends six hours debating whether men can get pregnant'

Maybe they'll just not bother.

😂

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-scotland-politics-66997684

Have only had time to skim through this thread, so not really able to understand but am troubled by this:

'A person with GRC would be entitled to access single sex services but person with PC of GR without GRC would not

Not sure who said this or in what context but this is not true. So are they saying they want to end singel sex exemptions?

WtF???????????????????

To be fair, OP, I think there is a very small handful of people in the world who were able to 1. properly hear what was going on and 2. understand it.

That quote was from the Scottish Government's KC. Their argument boiled down to the fact that they think that a man with a GRC would be able to use women's spaces, yes.

Concurrently, of course, the Scotgov are trying to make it much easier to get a GRC.

That quote was from the Scottish Government's KC. Their argument boiled down to the fact that they think that a man with a GRC would be able to use women's spaces, yes.

Thanks - I suppose I should have worked out that it would be them. As after all they have in effect told women's groups in Scotland that this is what they should do.

In fact, I am not sure they even currently think a certificate is needed.

And yes, although not actuallly read, Tirbunal Tweets need a big thank you.

(And threads like this!)

Concurrently, of course, the Scotgov are trying to make it much easier to get a GRC.

Whilst simultaneously arguing that a GRC confers no additional rights.
I don't know how they get away with continually moving the goal posts.

Utterly bizarre watching a woman argue in court that men can be women ( and is unaware that there's been any problems with it ), and a man passionately argue that women need single sex spaces. What has the world come to?

Yes. I actually found it quite chilling. The Scotgov's KC was very measured, confident and assured. She managed to make the most absurd, batshit arguments sound perfectly plausibly legally sound.

Utterly batshit. But legally plausible.

I did wonder whether for a legal bod it might be quite thrilling to think that one could actually argue in court that up is down, black is white, men are women, and get away with it?

That must be like a dream ambition for a KC with an ego, no?

Not only that they have advanced 2 opposing arguments in the 2 cases.
In this cases they have specifically stated that a grc is NOT just an administrative process between a person and the government, yet in the grr case they argued that it IS just an administrative process between a person and the state.
So it would seem that we have schrodingers process here

Oh, aye, it's bollocks. This is why AN was arguing that they were backing two horses going in opposite directions, to paraphrase.

This is a tricky one anyway because if we win, then the S35 Order is on a shoogly peg.

Thank you Arabella for the live commentary on the thread.

If FWS win then a GRC will not mean that you are now the opposite sex in law. While this will probably kill the S35 Order, it will do so by making a GRC meaningless.

I have given up trying to understand the Tribunal tweets thread. Not blaming them. But I just cant follow it.

But did see this on twitter:

For Women Scotland
During the appeal hearing today@scotgov lawyer conceded that people without a GRC are NOT allowed to access services and spaces for the opposite sex. They also suggested that people like Freddy McConnell should not have maternity rights. Not sure how they square this with arguments that GRCs make little difference.