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

Not familiar with the Grainger test but surely material reality is just as relevant when it comes to GI theory...?

The gaps in scientific knowledge allow for some elements GI belief, like religious belief to be metaphysically possible, in theory. It depends how you frame GI belief. They don't allow for flat earth belief in the same way.

Googling? You'd have thought they'd be prepared with some grasp of the fundamentals, at least.

KC: ( to female judge): M'Lady.....do you consider yourself to be a woman?
JD: Yes, I suppose i do.....
KC: Well, M'Lady...what is it that makes you think you are a woman.....Your hair, your make-up, perhaps?
JD: Let me think really hard about that question......
KC: Your wig and gown, maybe?
JD: Hang on, I'm still thinking......

Exactly what Lord Tebbit quoted during the GRA debates.

Yes, absolutely, I don't think a belief that a man's body was a woman's body would pass the test. But that's GI ideology. I was referring to a simple belief in GI - gender identity itself - the belief in gendered souls, or that you are a woman in a man's body, or possibly even that what makes you male or female is how you feel.. The soul is not material reality.

Now going deep into the problems and lacunae of the pregnant male.

Just started watching. I'm thinking I am possibly more intelligent than this judge... I'm worried.

Counsel for FWS says he's got an hour left.

Serious question..but what are the qualifications required to be a judge?

Did he really not understand the difference between 'includes' and 'means'?

'Under section 25 of the CRA 2005, there are two possible routes to qualification for appointment as a Justice of the UKSC. First, a person is eligible for appointment if they have held high judicial office for a period of at least two years. "High judicial office" is defined in section 60(2) of the CRA 2005 as meaning a judge of the UKSC, the Court of Appeal of England and Wales, the High Court of England and Wales, the Court of Session, the Court of Appeal in Northern Ireland or the High Court in Northern Ireland.

Alternatively, a person may be eligible for appointment as a Justice of the UKSC if they have qualified and practised as a solicitor, barrister or advocate in England and Wales, Scotland or Northern Ireland for a period of at least 15 years. To do this, they must satisfy either the judicial appointment eligibility condition on a 15 year basis or have been a qualifying practitioner for a period of at least 15 years. A person will satisfy the judicial appointment eligibility condition if they have been a solicitor of the senior courts of England and Wales or a barrister in England and Wales for at least 15 years and have gained experience in law during the post-qualification period (for example, by practising as a lawyer or acting as a judge or arbitrator). A person is a qualifying practitioner if they have been an advocate in Scotland, a solicitor entitled to appear in the Court of Session and the High Court of Justiciary, a member of the Bar of Northern Ireland or a solicitor of the Court of Judicature of Northern Ireland.'

https://www.supremecourt.uk/about/appointments-of-justices.html

Not that significant then......anyone can apply with just a few year's legal experience. That has to be concerning. You'd have thought only the most experienced, most competent, and most well regarded would make it.

Could someone who is listening in say whether they think it possible that the judges are being deliberately "naive" in their questioning - ie deliberately adopting an 'explain it to me as if I know nothing at all' stance. This would surely be a constructive approach? I can't really believe that senior judges would be genuinely ignorant to the extent some of the coverage here suggests??

Pleeese let them be Socratic rather than daft??

It appears to be a mixture of both, to me.

The quote tweets are a treat.

Just found a Deacon slagging them off!

No I think the judges (in the last 20 mins at least) have been genuinely not understanding. They are deviating too much for it to be deliberate point making.

Gosh I'm a bit lost. Anyone able to follow this...?

Is this just a massive diss of the Government of the time?!😂

Let's hope the slagging deacon
Will prove to be a beacon
And have their readers peakin'

Given that one of them called a transwoman a natal female, I think they are in some instances genuinely confused. Although I'm sure many/most questions are performatively seeking clarification. And I understand they are discussing points of law, not their own views.

All purposes but not hereditary peerages. Why not bring that up to show that all purposes does not equal every single instance? Unless I have missed that

I am not watching. I don't know which of the judges is saying what. But I do know Lady Rose professionally. I definitely rate her, and I know many KCs and judges who rate her as well.

I don't know Lady Simler but I have read many of her judgements and she is highly regarded and very experienced.

The judges do have quite a narrow remit. They have to interpret the law as it is written. Sadly the issue (as we all know) is that the written law is a mess.

I’m hopelessly lost now

Because that exception is explicitly written into the law, I guess that it doesn't have an impact on how possible-exceptional-situations are dealt with when they are not explicitly written into the law?

All that the hereditary peerage get-out does is demonstrate how utterly cynical some of the processes were when the law was made; rather than having a bearing on how the law can be interpreted?

Just to mention journalist Nick Wallis is also in the room and tweeting along.

Bah, I missed this morning, and my stream keeps buffering this afternoon, so I'm having a bit of trouble following this. Did the judges make any comment on his assertion that section 9(1) of the GRA doesn't apply if it makes other laws we try to apply it to nonsensical.