For Women Scotland heading for Supreme Court

[Imnobody4]

You can read the reasons etc in For Women Scotlands crowdfunder. They are launching this review
UK Supreme Court: The Definition of Sex in the Equality Act

The Inner House of the Court of Session Judgment

We believe the Equality Act was drafted on the basis of the ordinary, common law understanding of the biological differences between the two sexes. The protected characteristic of “sex” in the Equality Act is defined as a reference to a man or a woman, where man means “a male of any age” and woman means “a female of any age”. We think it is quite clear that these are distinct and separate groups and that “woman” is not a mixed-sex category.

However, in our recent judicial review, For Women Scotland v The Scottish Ministers [2023] CSIH 37, the Inner House took the opposite view and decided there is a relationship between the Gender Recognition Act 2004 (GRA) and Equality Act 2010 and held that the meaning of sex in the Equality Act incorporated the GRA framework.

The court decision stated that a person with a Gender Recognition Certificate (GRC) in their acquired gender has the protected characteristic of gender reassignment. Separately, they also possess the protected characteristic of sex according to the terms of their GRC and have a presumptive right to access the single-sex services of their acquired gender.

The Supreme Court will consider a request brought by For Women Scotland (FWS) who argue there are “strong grounds” for its challenge, which will almost certainly overturn contentious Scottish government legislation if successful.Campaigners for women’s “sex-based” rights reacted with delight to the news, including Magi Gibson, the poet, who posted on X/Twitter, that it was “game on” on in the “fight for the protection of women’s rights within the UK legal system”.Dennis Noel Kavanagh, a lawyer and the director of Gay Men’s Network, said: “Getting permission to go to the Supreme Court is really hard and very rare but FWS have it. The question ‘what is a woman’ in law will now be heard by our highest court. Massive news.”

www.thetimes.com/article/088ae0ce-fba9-4b97-8331-01a32195bef5?shareToken=3ada340957f5d2af2e20b01a7c15da3b

Woops! It seems Jolyon 'I am very good at what I do' Maugham KC and his (Not Very) Good Law Project have lost in court, again.

So, that's another £31,874 of crowdfunded donations down the toilet.

goodlawproject.org/crowdfunder/he…

Oh dear, how sad, never mind.

linkedin.com/feed/update/ur…

https://x.com/Wonkypolicywonk/status/1843365271928762708?t=XBpZnc_e5MqITnevj8la1w&s=19
What if the ground shifted under your feet? What if a law you’d been relying on for 20 years was under threat and you had no say? What if a campaign was making the case for a change that increased the risk you’d suffer harassment, discrimination and maybe even violence – and you were shut out of the room?We all deserve to live free from discrimination and harassment. That’s not just a matter of courtesy. It’s a set of protections enshrined in law. In 2004, the Gender Recognition Act was introduced as a safeguard for many trans people to be able to live freely, authentically and openly. It gave trans people the right to legally change their sex.In 2010, the Equality Act codified and updated the UK’s existing equality law framework, maintaining the protections in equality law against harassment, discrimination and violence that already protected trans people as men and women.The Equality Act, in combination with the Gender Recognition Act, means for example that trans women who have a Gender Recognition Certificate have protections under equality law if they are paid less than men because of their gender.But the Supreme Court is now due to hear a case that threatens the freedoms and protections that trans people have relied on for 20 years. And this case could be heard with no trans people in the room – with no reference to the devastating effect it could have on their lives.The campaign group For Women Scotland are not for trans women and they are not for the huge numbers of women who are trans allies. They‘ve been trying to get the courts to redefine the Equality Act 2010. So far their attempt to unwind the legal status of trans women has failed.But they are trying again – this time in the highest court in the land.Good Law Project wants to make sure the voices and experiences of trans people – and the trans inclusive majority of women – are heard at the Supreme Court. We will be supporting an application to intervene from the woman who was the UK’s first trans judge, Dr Victoria McCloud KC, and other representative groups.It is beyond contemplation that these questions could be decided by the Supreme Court, and argued by those who want to strip trans people of their protections, without hearing from trans people themselves. Please help us fund this case, so that does not happen. Nothing about us without us.

Wow, what a surfeit of irony in that statement.

"What if the ground shifted under your feet? What if a law you’d been relying on for 20 years was under threat and you had no say? What if a campaign was making the case for a change that increased the risk you’d suffer harassment, discrimination and maybe even violence – and you were shut out of the room?" What if the term woman was redefined in law and you could change your legal sex for many purposes and women were losing single-sex spaces and being denied the right to identify themselves as a sex class and being told they must accept that men can become women and let those men into their spaces, thus increasing the risk of sexual violence and were being silenced and told to reframe their trauma and fired if they objected?

Separately, they also possess the protected characteristic of sex according to the terms of their GRC and have a presumptive right to access the single-sex services of their acquired gender.

This isn't what both the EHRC says or in fact the law. "single sex services" in that law refer to those service protected by the SSE.

However, as I understand it from various statements etc., TW with a GRC are "legal women" and can therefore be counted in for instance work places claiming they have improved the number of "women" employed. (Lady Haldane ruling).

So is this court case to overturn the Lady Haldane ruling?

Yes it's being heard early November.

Gardening done. I see they have about £34000 left to go

Sorry have now read the Times article and see it is the Lady Haldane ruling which as I understand it was about representation on boards etc., and did not have anything to do with single sex services which in a side note Lady Haldane said were protected by the single sex exemptions.

FWS argued that the wider definition of woman meant that those who were “biologically male” but held a GRC would be included, with knock-on effects for providers of single-sex services.

I dont understand this arguement. Its not that I like it, but as writte,n and interpreted by Lady Haldane the SSE, are based on being able to prove they are proportionate.

The Lady Haldane ruling did not change the working of the interactons of the GRA, EA and SSE as they are meant to happen. Which doesn't mean, as we know, that groups such as ERCC and others say the think the SSE include trans women.

Would hate for this court case to back fire and lead to a court ruling that says TW are covered by the SSE.

Which at the moment in law, they aren't.

Why aren't they just challenging the actual ruling which allows TW to be counted in employment, and or boards etc., as being (legal) women.

Separately, they also possess the protected characteristic of sex according to the terms of their GRC and have a presumptive right to access the single-sex services of their acquired gender.
This isn't what both the EHRC says or in fact the law.

It is exactly what the EHRC say (and argued in court) and what the decision of the Inner House states. See para 55 of the judgment: "A person with a GRC has a prima facie right to access the services of their acquired sex."
https://www.scotcourts.gov.uk/media/l1imtxvx/court-of-session-judgement-reclaiming-motion-by-for-women-scotland-limited-against-the-scottish-ministers-01-november-2023.pdf

This ruling by the Inner House superseded Lady Haldane's judgment in the lower court (the Outer House). There are differences between these judgments so the Haldane ruling is fairly inconsequential now.

And it's the Inner House judgment that is now being appealed to the UK Supreme Court.

It is exactly what the EHRC say (and argued in court) and what the decision of the Inner House states. See para 55 of the judgment: "A person with a GRC has a prima facie right to access the services of their acquired sex."
https://www.scotcourts.gov.uk/media/l1imtxvx/court-of-session-judgement-reclaiming-motion-by-for-women-scotland-limited-against-the-scottish-ministers-01-november-2023.pdf

This ruling by the Inner House superseded Lady Haldane's judgment in the lower court (the Outer House). There are differences between these judgments so the Haldane ruling is fairly inconsequential now.

And it's the Inner House judgment that is now being appealed to the UK Supreme Court.

Thank you for clarifying this.

Here's the official status:

https://www.supremecourt.uk/cases/uksc-2024-0042.html

Hearing start date
26 November 2024
Hearing finish date
27 November 2024

Thank you!

If anyone wants clarification on where things currently stand, this a clear summary:

https://www.scottishlegal.com/articles/inner-house-rejects-challenge-to-revised-statutory-guidance-on-public-board-gender-representation-legislation

FWS do have an uphill battle on this one.

Here's list of those presenting evidence - it looks good

https://x.com/ForWomenScot/status/1843580997134385566?t=gYWK_ah6yOtDclU6IYQQGA&s=19

We have now updated our Crowd Justice page with details of those who have been given permission to intervene in our Supreme Court appeal on 26-27th November.

So TRA legal academic Stephen Whittle and TRA judge Victoria McLeod asked to intervene supported by the GLP as per ImNobody post below and were refused.

Hooray for the exclusion of whittle

The exclusion of McLeod and Whittle may have prompted some celebratory gardening. 😂

Yes! I just read my email update from FWS.

• EHRC - Granted (written submission + 1 hour oral representations)
• Sex Matters - Granted (written submission + 1 hour oral representations)
• Scottish Lesbians / The Lesbian Project / LGB Alliance - Granted (written submission)
• Amnesty International UK - Granted (written submission)
• Victoria McCloud / Stephen Whittle - Refused

Oh dear. How sad. Never mind.

Although some may say that the term tra legal academic = oxymoron.

Got the email today and looked for a MN thread

Good news. I will plant some carrots 🥕

Veg planted. Had to put wellies on, it's tipping down here.

I'd hoped we'd heard the last of They-Them McCloud, who was disciplined for making intemperate political statements online, then fibbed that them was forced out for no real reason.

Can we see the rejected application from McCloud/Whittle?

I could do with a laugh.

Trouble is nobody seems to understand that they can exclude TW with a GRC by using the single sex exceptions. There is so much misinformation out there and however much feminist orgs put out correct info it never seems to make an impact. And even where organisations (such as the nhs) do understand the law they still refuse to implement the SSEs. At least a SC judgement will put an end to all the squabbling and at least if it goes against FWS those pushing self ID will no longer be able to say that a GRC doesn’t enable men to access women’s spaces and services. Labour will no longer be able to pretend they will protect women’s spaces / services/ sports etc. Clarity might be a good thing in the long run even if it feels like a loss in the short term. Maybe.

“Amnesty International has been given permission to intervene in a landmark Supreme Court case on the legal definition of woman.

“The charity, the Equality and Human Rights Commission (EHRC), Scottish Lesbians, and Sex Matters have all been granted permission to take part in For Women Scotlqnd vs Scottish Ministers at the end of next month.

“Despite the potential ramifications across the country, the UK Government has seemingly not requested to intervene.”

https://www.heraldscotland.com/news/24638301.amnesty-joins-landmark-supreme-court-case-definition-woman/

The intervention list especially EHRC coming in is promising. I also take hope from the excellence of the lawyers on the reality side too.

Ultimately it maybe the bad nature of the existing law may go against us though.

However, the judgement either way will clarify the situation and what we have to fight against. Even if we lose I think the judgement is likely to draw attention to the sexist nature of the existing law. Scottish women are heroes for this stand which has already had a global impact.